MAHALAXMI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, by means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seek to assail the legality and correctness of the order dated 16-4-85 passed by the School Tribunal. Bombay Region, Bombay whereby the said tribunal set aside the notification dated 31st July, 1984 issued by the petitioners removing the respondent No. 3 herein from the post of Headmaster and directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent No. 3 herein in the same post with consequential benefits.

(2.) The first petitioner Mahalaxmi Shikshan Sanstha, Mumbai is the public trust and runs a school known as Vidyamandir High School. The second petitioner is a Chairman of the trust namely the first petitioner. Shri. Jagannath Gajanan Jadhav who is impleaded as respondent No. 3 herein and hereinafter referred to as an 'employee' was appointed as Headmaster on 13-6-79 by the management of the first petitioner, hereinafter referred to as 'management'. The employee was temporarily suspended on 29-2-80 on the allegation of lack of satisfactory performance and dereliction of duties. According to the management on 4-3-1980, Director of Education superseded the school administration and appointed an administrator to run the school. The employee is alleged to have not handed over charge as Headmaster inspite of an administrator having been appointed and that led to the litigation before this Court by way of writ petition filed by the management, in which the employee was directed to handover charge. It is the case of the management that on 8th January, 1983 the then administrator terminated the services of the employee and the said order came to be passed because of the failure of the employee to submit proper accounts for the years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80, and, also due to employee's refusal to accept the full workload of teaching and his absence from the school. The order of administrator terminating the employee's services was challenged by the employee in appeal before the Director of Education who by the order dated 11th January, 1984 set aside the employee's termination. However, the management was granted liberty to hold the enquiry against the employee for his alleged omissions and commissions and misconduct in accordance with the Maharashtra Employees of Private School Rules. 1981 (for short, 'Rules of 1981'), and proceed against the employee accordingly. The management thereafter in its meeting held on 14th January, 1984 decided to hold an enquiry against the employee for his alleged misconduct. By the provisional order dated 11th January, 1984, the employee was temporarily suspended by the management and by the order dated 20th February, 1984 of the management, the employee's suspension pending enquiry was confirmed and statement of allegations were served upon the employee somewhere in the month of February, 1984. No written explanation or reply is alleged to have been received by the management pursuant to the service of the statement allegations within seven days from its receipt and accordingly the management decided to hold an enquiry under the Rules of 1981 and accordingly by the Resolution of 25th March, 1984, an Enquiry Committee was constituted whereby the President of the management was nominated as convener of the Enquiry Committee and the management also nominated Shri G.J. Raut as member of Enquiry Committee. The employee was asked to nominate his member on the Enquiry Committee by the communication dated 3-4-84. The employee was intimated that name and address of his nominee with his consent letter should reach the convener of the Enquiry Committee on or before 23-4-1984 and in case of employees failure to nominate his member to Enquiry Committee on or before the stipulated period, the Enquiry Committee of two members constituted shall start to enquire with the matter. The employee was also sent charge-sheet and he was called upon to submit reply/explanation on or before 23-4-84. It appears that on 19-4-84 the employee sent the communication to the convener of the Enquiry Committee raising serious objections about the constitution of Enquiry Committee. In his communication dated 19-4-84, the employee alleged that appointment of the President of the management as convener of the Enquiry Committee is unconstitutional and that he did not expect any justice from such Enquiry Committee. According to employee, though he had mind to communicate the name and address of his nominee alongwith his letter of consent, in view of the fact that the Chairman of the management was convener of the Committee, he did not expect any justice from such Enquiry Committee. On 1-6-84 the Enquiry Committee sent a notice to the employee for appearing before the Committee on 15th June, 1984 and to give evidence touching the charges preferred against him. Admittedly, the management by that time had not produced any documents or any evidence before the Enquiry Committee and, Mr. Parekh the learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted before me that the management tendered the documents in support of its case and the charges levelled against the employee on 15-6-84 for the first time before the Enquiry Committee. Mr. Parekh also submitted after carefully going through the enquiry record & proceedings of the enquiry available with him that copies of the said documents which were tendered by the management before the Enquiry Committee on 15-6-84 in support of its case and in proof of charges against the employee were not furnished to the employee. It appears that on 15-6-1984 the employee did not appear and as already stated above, the management tendered the documents in support of its case before the Enquiry Committee.

(3.) On 15-6-1984, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the documents were tendered by the management but since there was want of coram, the meeting of the Enquiry Committee was adjourned to 19-6-1984. On 19-6-1984 on behalf of management Mr. B.M. Bamane appeared and nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent. The evidence of the witnesses of the management was recorded and the proceedings of the Enquiry Committee were adjourned to second week of July, 1984. It appears that on 22-6-84 the employee by hand delivery gave a letter to the Chairman of the management who is convener of the Enquiry Committee. In the said letter dated 22-6-84 the employee stated that he wanted to peruse all the relevant documents, registers, account books and vouchers for his defence and he also required authentic copies of the proceedings of the meetings of the Enquiry Committee held on 15th and 19th June, 1984, alongwith copies of the statement of any witnesses recorded by the Enquiry Committee on the above dates. He prayed for any date between 26-6-1984 to 28-6-1984 so that he could appear before the Enquiry Committee and on that date the requisite copies of the documents in the proceedings and the statement of the witnesses may be supplied to him. He also prayed that he may be intimated about the next date of hearing of the Enquiry Committee to enable him to remain present on that date. It appears that on 7th July, 1984 Enquiry Committee could not proceed for want of coram and the proceedings were adjourned to 8-7-1984. On 8-7-1984 the summary report was prepared by the Enquiry Committee and sent to the management and a copy thereof was despatched to the employee which was received by him on 12th July, 1984. On 26-7-1984 the Enquiry Committee prepared supplementary summary report and on 27-7-1984 the report with recommendations were prepared by the Enquiry Committee.